Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 31, 2004 Work Session 105 A W orksession of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Tuesday, August 31,2004, at 12:00 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice-Chairman Barbara E. Van Osten; Gary W. Dove; Gina A. Forrester; and Lynda 1. Tyler ABSENT Bill M. Ewing; and Shawnee District - Vacant OTHERS PRESENT Planning Commission Chairman Charles S. Dehaven, Jr.; and Planning Commissioners Robert A. Morris; John Light; Pat Gochenour; Marie F. Straub; George J. Kriz; William C. Rosenberry; Roger Thomas; and Gene Fisher; Comprehensive Plans & Policies Subcommittee Members: Diane Kearns; Todd Shenk; June Wilmot; Jim Golladay; Marjorie Copenhaver; and Sue Ann Teal CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the work session to order. JOINT WORKSESSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION - RURAL AREAS STUDY - RESULTS OF STAKEHOLDERS AND PUBLIC VISIONING MEETINGS Senior Planner Susan Eddy began by reviewing the study process to date, which included preliminary discussions; 8 stakeholder meetings; 6 visioning sessions; an opinion survey; and a work session with the Board and Planning Commission held on May 11,2004. Senior Planner Eddy then reviewed the guiding concepts for policy formulation: I. Cluster new dwellings. 2. Maximize conserved open space. 3. Gross residential density of one dwelling unit per five acres. 4. Rezoning process to address physical & fiscal impacts. 5. Protect and support agriculture. She then reviewed the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee policy recommendations, which included: Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Worksession with Planning Commission on Rural Areas Study - 08/31/04 I 106 1. The Green Infrastructure concept as a framework on which to base the rural areas study. The core ofthis concept is the primary conservation of resources, including flood plains, wetlands, steep slopes, and riparian buffers; features already protected by County Ordinance. These are interconnected to secondary conservation resources (e.g. farms, forests, and wildlife). 2. Land Development, which includes three elements: 1) By-right development for minor subdivisions; 2) By-right development for 25 acres or more "estate" lots; and 3) All other subdivisions would require a rezoning to a new zoning category. The development potential would be based on the parent tract of record at the time of the adoption of a Zoning Ordinance amendment. 3. Rural Economy, which would include: continued support for agriculture; Rural Diversification; and Greater commitment by the County to the rural economy. This can be done through ordinance revisions and staff support. 4. Rural Community Centers - Diverse roles; crossroads vs. villages; future studies with residents; small increase in commercial development; maintain RA residential standards until a study can be undertaken. 5. Transportation, which looks at the impact of development on the roads, limited funding, and rezoning. 6. The relationship of the Rural Areas to the Urban Development Areas (UDA). Senior Planner Eddy advised that it was staffs intent to present these recommendations to the public and stakeholders in September 2004 with a recommendation from the CPPS being forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors by Fall 2004. She concluded by saying that staff needed Board direction on the following issues: 1. Rezoning. 2. Density change. 3. Mandatory Conservation Subdivisions. 4. Other concerns. With regard to the rezoning process, CPPS member Todd Shenk stated that he believed the proposed rezoning process would overtax county staff and developers and that he would have approached development in the rural areas from an incentive process rather than rezoning. He was also concerned that the rezoning process would result in increased costs, when a landowner tried to sell his/her lots. He also felt that the rezoning process would result in property owners in the rural areas having no idea what their land values are. Planning Commissioner Roger Thomas stated that the County needed a rural residential zoning district, which would help control residential development in the rural areas. Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Worksession with Planning Commission on Rural Areas Study - 08/31/04 107 Vice-Chairman Van Osten stated that she thought the Committee did a wonderfuljob on this and she appreciated the time they devoted to this tough issue. She thought the recommendations that had come out of the numerous meetings were solid. Supervisor Dove stated that he agreed with the rezoning process. He stated that he was concerned about national builders coming into the county's rural areas and developing without the County receiving any revenue from the development other than tax revenue. Chairman Shickle advised that the rezoning process troubled him, if it was not an automatic rezoning process where the applicant would meet certain requirements and criteria prior to receiving approval. Supervisor Forrester favored the rezoning process and stated that in order for the Board to restrict land use then they would have to take some controls. The Board consensus regarding the rezoning process was: Chairman Shickle - Opposed the rezoning process unless it was an automatic process. Vice-Chairman Van Osten - Favored the rezoning process. Supervisor Dove - Favored the rezoning process. Supervisor Forrester - Favored the rezoning process, but was opposed to an automatic rezomng. Supervisor Tyler - Favored the rezoning process. The group then discussed the proposed density changes. Commissioner Light stated that he would like to get the Board's feelings about communal water/sewer systems in the rural areas. Vice-Chairman Van Osten and Supervisors Dove and Tyler supported communal systems if they were inspected and maintained by FCSA or a third party. Supervisor Forrester stated that she was not sure where she would fall on this issue because the use of communal systems would facilitate the creation of smaller lots in the rural areas. Chairman Shickle advised that he had no interest in communal systems. The Board then discussed minimum lot sizes in the rural areas. Chairman Shickle stated that he had concerns about lots ofless than two (2) acres in the rural areas. Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Worksessiou with Planning Commission on Rural Areas Study - 08/31/04 108 Vice-Chairman Van Osten advised that she would support a minimum lot size of one (I) acre. Supervisor Tyler advised that she would support a minimum lot size of I Yo. acres. Supervisor Dove advised that he would support a minimum lot size of 3/4 acre. Supervisor Forrester advised that she would support a minimum lot size of two (2) acres. With regard to the proposed density in the rural areas, Vice-Chairman Van Osten and Supervisors Forrester and Tyler liked the staff recommendation of 1 dwelling unit per five (5) acres up to 100 acres and 1 dwelling unit per 25 acres over 100 acres. Chairman Shickle and Supervisor Dove felt that 25 acres was too big. After further discussion, the Board felt the overall proposal needed further discussion before being taken to the public. Chairman Shickle advised that the Board was looking for a level of personal comfort with this proposal before sending it out for public review and comment. Commissioner Light stated that the Committee would back up the schedule by 30 days in order to give everyone a chance to discuss the feedback from today. At the end of 30 days, the Committee would bring any changes, etc. to the Board for further review and discussion. THERE BEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE WORKSESSION WAS ADJOURNED. (2:35 P.M.) Q..J2rS L5~~~ Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: Qn . f '-(u Jay . Ttbs Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Worksession with Planning Commission on Rural Areas Study - 08/31/04